Democritus asserted that atoms which make up “things” occupy a void, if one can understand and get to grips with his theory then “space” and “time” are simply ridiculous notions that ought to be forgotten. The atom is what “is” and it is the atom that lies or occupies the what is not, “it” being the void.
For how many years has Science made attempts at answering “the beginning” and the size of “space”?
Maybe it is time we gave our most ancient philosophers a read. When one accepts the idea of atoms occupying a void then there is no question such as “why something rather than nothing?”
Maybe somebody else also has some thoughts on the the theory.
But we read way too much of them! The Greeks themselves couldn’t give a ratass about their classical philology, yet people living on the other side of the earth try hard to distinguish between pi and phi, so that they could “read” guys like Democritus, who believed that atomic blocs shoot out of people’s eyes so that they see what they hit… maybe it’s time we left the dehydrated goatskins to the museums.
The atom is not a void blunt. It’s got a dense nucleus and electrons going around it. The void inside is what they call space. So atom is not space itself, it’s just a structure consisting fundamental particals, built in space like everything itself builds.
atoms do indeed occupy a void, and we (ie modern phisics) has pretty much came to grips with this notion. if there are no particles of any sort, there we have a void. not a problem
space and time are not either ludicrous or to be forgotten, your hasty jump to conclusions is. space and times are properties of the universe, or of your experience. (the distinction is made by kant, on the valid basis that you cant know anything about them outside your experience, so they must be at the very least a caracteristic of it. at the very most we cant know)
both space and time are theoretical models to describe properties of matter and energy. as such they are just as ridiculous as the concept of atomic mass. so they are not a “thing” in the sense of being material, indeed we can not experimentally notice them EXCEPT in the way they reflect on material “things”. scientists never said “space” is the same sort of “thing” as an apple.
i think this comparison would help, we can say that in any given human population you will have a number of males and a number of females. you then proceed to ask where does the number of females live, seeing how all females live somewhere. the number of females does exist, it is a thing, but it does not live anywhere outside of heads of people discussing the population.
I agree with you but since space/time are vices of human perception, they do not exist independent of humans. If atoms are the only “thing” that do exist and the void is what does not exist then what else is there left to contemplate?
General relativity and String Theory propose a universe in which the fabric of space (and time) warps, expands, tears and repairs itself. To modern physicists who have, undeniably, the most comprehensive understanding of the universe in the history of our world, space exists
Okay, aside from cracking old jokes I’ll contribute something. I don’t think there are atoms and the void, I think all is essentially one surface which fluctuates, we are boats on the sea. However to keep the metaphor running we cannot dive into the sea.
But I don’t even know that, all I know are the appearances I’ve thus far experienced (which indicate this). But I wouldn’t simply reduce space or time to an individual’s subjective experience, I think it’s more collective than that. We participate in a general interpretation of experience which states (loosely) that everything changes except time, the flux of time is a constant.
I do not follow your logic. Seeing as we as humans cannot even conceptualize a “void,” I find it highly unlikely that one must exist. Perhaps the universe has two choices: to be or not to be, no void necessary.
I too do not know how you reached your conclusion, you say “space” has the choice of either being or not being but i ask you what “space” occupies? When one says, “everything” is, what do they mean? Do they mean that atoms exist and they exist in the Universe? If so then what does the “universe” occupy?
Saying that the universe must occupy anything is a fallacy. In theoretical physics, our logic and intution typically have to be set aside. The universe, on the whole, does not perform and exist in ways that we are accustomed to thinking.